Planning Board Meeting
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Council Chambers of the Town Offices
290 Tuttle Road, Cumberland Center
7:00 PM
A. Call To Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Present: Tom Powers, acting Chair, Beth Howe, Bill Ward, Bob Couillard, Chris Neagle, Terry Turner.
Phil Hunt absent until 7:55pm.
Staff: Carla Nixon, Town Planner, Nancy Decker, Board Clerk
C. Minutes of Prior Meetings
Ms. Howe moved to approve the minutes of April 20, 2004 with technical corrections.
Mr. Turner seconded.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. Consent Calendar / Deminimus Change Approvals
Ms. Nixon reviewed the 10x9 utility shed for the U.S. Route One Chebeague Island parking lot. The shed would be placed on cement blocks and located behind the porto potties. Ms. Nixon stated that the purpose of this building is for the equipment used for the upkeep of the lot. The shed will purchased from Sears.
Mr. Neagle moved to approve the 10x9 Utility shed for the U.S. Route One Chebeague Island Parking lot.
Mr. Ward Seconded.
Vote: UNANIMOUS
E. Hearings and Presentations
1. Application Completeness -- Minor Site Plan, Slow Bell Café, 2 Walker Drive, Chebeague Island, Tax Assessor Map I03, Lot 33, (Former Nellie G. Restaurant) SYTDesign Consultants, representative, Jonathan KomLosy, owner.
Ms. Howe recused herself as she is an abutter to the applicant.
Ms. Nixon reviewed with the Board:
REQUEST:
The applicant and property owner is Jonathon KomLosy of 2 Walker Drive, Chebeague Island, Maine. The property is located in Zone IB (Island Business.) The application is for site plan approval of a 40-seat restaurant with a take out counter. Restaurants are a permitted use in the IB zone. The structure was formerly the Nellie G. Restaurant. After that, it was converted to residential use, and therefore must undergo site plan approval for the change of use to a restaurant. The Planning Board is asked to review the plan for application completeness. The representative is Jonathon KomLosy. SYTDesign prepared the site plan.
PROJECT HISTORY:
June 13, 2003: Tabled by Planning Board
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
1. The parcel is located at 2 Walker Drive, off South Road, diagonally across from the Post Office (Map I-03, Lot 33). The parcel is .85 acres in size. Minimum lot size in the IB zone is 1.5 acres, however this parcel is a lot of record.
2. The proposal is to open a 40-seat restaurant with a take-out counter. The restaurant and take out will be located on the first floor, which is 1,172 sq. ft. The upstairs, which consists of 2 bedrooms and a bathroom (378 sq. ft.), will be living quarters for Mr. KomLosy.
3. The applicant anticipates operating the café and take-out on a seasonal basis for the first few years.
4. The structure is currently a 1-3/4 story wood frame house. It is 32' x 26" (2026 sq. ft.). The applicant proposes to enlarge the existing 12 x 8 deck to permit five tables and chairs to be placed upon it, and to enlarge the waiting area for the take-out.
5. The parking area has space for 16 cars. It is currently unpaved and will remain unpaved, so actual parking lines will not be marked. A handicap parking sign will be placed. There are currently two entrances to the lot, one will be closed off to make room for parking and to make the entrance and exit safer.
6. This plan is classified as minor since it involves a structure of less than 5,000 sq. ft. (1,172- sq. ft. proposed).
7. The parcel will be serviced by a private well. A new well has been drilled on the parcel across the road (also owned by Mr. KomLosy.) Final approval from the State Drinking Water Program is required prior to putting the well on line. Two satisfactory water sample results must be obtained.
8. The parcel will be serviced by an on-site and site adjacent septic system. There is a lease on file between Paul Ferragamo and Jonathon KomLosy for the use of the Ferragamo parcel and septic system.
9. Existing electric and telephone are on site on overhead lines.
Mr. Wolfe, the applicants attorney, is speaking on behalf of Jonathan Komlosy, as he is out of town.
Mr. Neagle commented on the driveway.
Ms. Nixon stated that "driveway is the Hale ROW. This is one of the items of discussion for the Board.
Ms. Nixon asked Mr. Wolfe is he was able to find any written documentation on this ROW.
Mr. Wolfe does not have any other information. He does know that the Hales use this driveway to gain access to South Road. Mr. Bruce Bowman is gathering information on this. The applicant does not have a problem continuing to allow the Hales to use the café driveway for this use.
Mr. Neagle reviewed the waivers with the applicant.
Mr. Wolfe stated that the applicant does not use the ROW. He also stated that some of the waivers have been addressed.
Ms. Nixon stated that there is some concern regarding a culvert that the applicant may have done some work on with regards to channeling the water. This issue does need to be reviewed further.
Ms. Nixon asked that the drainage issue be reviewed at the next meeting.
The Board reviewed the waivers.
Ms. Nixon stated that Mr. Komlosy reviewed the solid waste issue with her. He stated that it would be stored in the shed and brought to the landfill on a weekly basis. Ms. Nixon would like this information to be stated in writing.
Ms. Nixon reviewed her concern with the existing lighting. The ordinance requires that light must not be visible beyond the property line. This includes lighting of the sign. There is a spot light shown.
Mr. Neagle commented on the landscaping on the site. He would like to see more information on the landscaping at the next meeting.
Mr. Turner asked Ms. Nixon about the 5000 square feet of the building.
Ms. Nixon stated that the applicants are not utilizing all of the 5000 square feet for the restaurant.
Mr. Powers asked about the arrangement for the septic system.
Mr. Wolfe stated that the word easement was referenced on the application, however he has a lease agreement with the neighbor to continue to have the septic where it is.
Mr. Powers asked if that was included in the packet. What are the terms of the lease and how long is it good for?
Ms. Nixon stated that her understanding is that the septic on site will just be used for gray water.
Mr. Wolfe stated that was correct.
Mr. Neagle stated that the lease has a one-year term, with a 90-day notice cancelable by both parties. He stated that the approval could be granted, conditioned on the applicant maintaining the lease. If the lease is cancelled or not renewed, the restaurant will have to shut down.
Mr. Wolfe stated the lease is conditional on the Planning Board granting the okay for the restaurant.
Mr. Powers asked if the applicant could improve on this lease vs. easement. The concern is that the town not need to track this.
Mr. Fricke did the site evaluation on the property. Mr. Fricke spoke with Mr. Peterson, the Town Plumbing Inspector. He stated there is a requirement when a permit is issued for a septic system located on abutting land, that a legal easement must be filed with the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Peterson is checking the Town records for this easement.
Mr. Powers suggested to the applicant that this be looked at. There is a statutory requirement for an easement.
Mr. Neagle stated a letter was received from Leonard Passano, an abutter, stating his concern with regards to the lighting and sound.
Mr. Powers asked what the hours of operation are?
A family member of Mr. Komlosy stated from 5:30am-10pm
Mr. Powers asked about entertainment.
A family member stated there would be entertainment (live music) not to exceed 9pm.
Mr. Neagle suggested that the applicant review the abutters letter and address these issues to the Board at a later date.
Ms. Nixon asked if this was a seasonal operation.
Mr. Wolfe stated that this will run seasonally from May-October.
Ms. Nixon stated that the Board should also give thought to the morning noise as well.
Ms. Nixon stated that the applicant has made reference to utilizing the parcel across the street for overflow parking. This may also want to be added as a condition of approval.
Ms. Nixon stated that the ordinance requires 1 parking space per 3 seats. This application does meet that requirement.
Mr. Turner moved to waive section 206.7.4.11 (Traffic)
Mr. Ward Seconded.
Vote: 3
Opposed: 1
Mr. Turner moved to waive the section 206.7.4.12 (Stormwater calculations/erosion)
Mr. Ward Seconded.
Vote: UNANIMOUS
Mr. Turner stated the issues that need to be addressed are:
1. Lighting on the sign/property.
2. Easement regarding the septic.
3. Landscaping plan.
Mr. Turner moved to find the application substantially complete with the above mentioned conditions.
Mr. Neagle Seconded.
Vote: UNANIMOUS
A Public Hearing - Final Plan Review is scheduled for the June 15, 2004 meeting.
2. Public Hearing Preliminary and Final Plan Review 3 lot Minor Subdivision, Wellstone Drive, 124 Orchard Rd., Tax Assessor Map R08, Lot 51, Larry Cochran/Cochran Custom Builders, Inc., representative, John and Robin Coffin, owners.
Ms. Nixon reviewed:
The applicant is Larry Cochran; he is presenting the project. The owners are John and Robin Coffin of Freeport. The property is located at 124 Orchard Road, Map R-08, Lot 51. The applicant proposes to build 3 single-family homes on a parcel of 9.24 acres+/-.
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Board review this plan tonight for both Preliminary and Final Approval.
HISTORY:
·
October 21, 2003: Board reviewed the plan as though for Sketch Plan Review rather than for Application Completeness. While Sketch Plan Review is not required for Minor Subdivisions, this step was taken to review to resolve some basic design/layout issues. The Board did not find the application complete. A site walk was scheduled for 11/1/03.
·
November 1, 2003: Site walk held.
·
November 18, 2003: Board found the application complete and approved the waiver requests listed below.
1. From Appendix C A - Scale drawing at 1 = 40 (approved 1 =100 )
2. From Appendix C- A-8 Contour lines at 10 intervals instead of 2
3. From Appendix C-A-10 Design of septic system. Test pit locations shown.
4. From Appendix C A- 11 Waiver of Stormwater Mgmt. plan (with CCSWCD approval)
·
December 18, 2003:
o Board voted to deny the waiver request that the road be unpaved.
o Board voted to approve the waiver request to not provide a by-way (Table 8-2)
Mr. Cochran stated that he has decided to remove his application from subdivision review. He stated that the property can be better utilized with two dwellings vs. three dwellings; in addition the cost factor with the paved road can be eliminated.
Mr. Powers stated that the Board has considered his application to be withdrawn. He wished Mr. Cochran luck on his project.
3. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plan Review Major Site Plan Greely Jr. High School Renovations, 303 Main St.; Tax Assessor Map U11 Lot 1, M.S.A.D. # 51 owner, S.M.R.T. Engineers, representative.
Ms. Nixon reviewed:
The applicant is MSAD #51. Paul Stevens, Principal, SMRT Architecture, Engineering and Planning, is the representative. Delucca-Hoffman prepared the site plan. The project is the proposed renovation and additions to the Greely Junior High School located at 303 Main St., Tax Assessor Map U11 Lot 1. Tonight the Board will begin Preliminary Plan Review.
Project Description:
1. The proposed work involves the existing junior high buildings facing Main Street. The project will include the Gyger Gym and the ca. 1980s gymnasium, and associated site work. The Greely Institute building and adjacent 50s era classroom buildings are not included in this project.
2. The proposed renovations and additions involve conversion of existing spaces to use for the performing and music programs of the high school in anticipation of the relocation of the junior high school population to the new facility nearing completion at the southeast end of the campus.
3. Site development will include removal of the existing continuous vehicular access in front of the junior high buildings and replacement with pedestrian walkways. 35 parking spaces have been displaced, 31 spaces are provided in the front parking area, and 4 spaces have been added near the loading access area. There is no net loss of parking proposed.
4. Three of the five portable classrooms currently located between the junior and senior high school buildings will be removed, and a large portion of the pavement under them. There is a net reduction of approximately 5,000 s.f. of impervious surface.
5. New mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire suppression systems will be included as part of the project.
6. Stormwater drainage on the site is anticipated remain basically as-is: with the exception of possible new drains in the area between the junior and senior high to accommodate surface and roof drainage.
7. New landscaping and pedestrian level lighting where required will complete the new work.
PROJECT HISTORY:
· February 24, 2004: Pre-application Conference with Planning Board
· March 16, 2004: Site Inventory and Analysis deemed complete.
· April 20, 2004: Application deemed complete.
Mr. Stevens reviewed the Planners comments. He stated that there should be no audible noise to be heard outside. A new hydrant will not be installed onsite. Sprinklers will be installed in the building. More information will be forwarded to the Fire Chief with regards to additional fire protection measures requested. An additional traffic study will not be done. There was a study done as part of the master plan and a permit was received by the MDOT. A letter is in the packet from the PWD. He stated they do not have a letter from CMP as of yet. There will be no sign on the building.
Ms. Nixon asked how people from out of town will know where the auditorium is located?
Mr. Stevens stated that the committee did not want a sign, but chose instead to use the existing sign. He will, however, bring the concerns of the Planning Board back to the committee for review.
Mr. Stevens stated that the sewage at the location is adequate. He made note to page 15.
Mr. Stevens also stated that due to this going to referendum in September for funding, that a condition of approval for financial capability be applied.
Mr. Stevens stated to Mr. Powers that the hours of construction operation will be from 7am-7pm.
Mr. Steve Bushey reviewed with the Board, the comments made by Tom Saucier of SYTDesign and the proposed corrections.
Mr. Powers asked about the lighting of the walkway from the Mable I. Wilson school to the existing Jr. High School.
Mr. Stevens stated that currently there is lighting shown on the plan. They intend to provide the path, however, would ask the Board for a waiver with regard to lighting the path due to cost considerations.
Mr. Powers asked the capacity of the auditorium.
Mr. Stevens stated 500.
Mr. Ward suggested a site walk. He would like to see the lightening and the dead-end parking issue as reviewed by Mr. Tom Saucier.
Mr. Powers suggested that Ms. Nixon arrange a site walk for Mr. Ward and Ms. Howe.
Mr. Powers opened the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Small, President of the Historical Society asked if the parking in front of the Jr. High would be changed. She also asked about the old trees.
Mr. Stevens stated that the new parking lot will have a one way in one way out. He stated that the trees will be saved.
Mr. Hunt closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Turner asked the applicant if Osgood Drive is going to be one way and one lane?
Mr. Stevens stated that Osgood Drive will be unchanged. We need to go to MDOT to get a modified permit change due to the in/out of the new parking lot.
Ms. Nixon stated that Preliminary Approval is not an actual stage. The review has begun, there are no major issues, next month we will look at this for final approval.
4. Public Hearing Minor Site Plan Review Parking and Site Improvements at the Foreside Community Church at 4 Foreside Road, Tax Assessor Map U01, Lot 2A. in the LDR district, Mohr & Seredin Landscape Architects, applicant, Foreside Community Church, owner.
Ms. Nixon reviewed:
REQUEST:
The applicant and owner is the Foreside Community Church. Steven Mohr of Mohr & Seredin Landscape Architects is the representative. Mohr & Seredin prepared the site plan. The applicant is requesting minor site plan review of proposed parking and site improvements on Lots 1 & 2A located at 4 Foreside Road, Tax Assessor Map U01 Lots 1 & 2A.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
· The Church is proposing to remove an existing house, garage and driveway on Lot 2A in order to construct a new parking lot and related improvements to supplement the existing parking at the church.
· The proposal is to revise the existing on-site circulation and parking by creating a one-way vehicular pattern that accesses two parking areas.
· The new layout creates a 26-car parking lot on the 4 Foreside Road lot, and reconfigures the existing lot into a one-way; exit only parking lot and driveway.
· Both lots will have 60 degree angled parking, and a new drop-off zone will be created at the front door of the church.
· A total of 70 parking spaces will be provided in the new parking areas.
· Access to the cemetery and the rear of the property will remain as existing, with a driveway through the parking area adjacent to the church. The internal radii have been sized to accommodate service vehicles for access to the cemetery.
· Two new sidewalks will provide access from the parking lots to the front doors of the sanctuary. This will separate pedestrian and vehicle traffic and create a pedestrian drop-off and pick-up area at the front door of the church.
· The proposal includes plans for revised lighting of the walkways and parking areas.
· The plan includes street tree plantings and the installation of a buffer at the easterly property line abutting a residential use. Additional planting will be placed along Route 88 and in the center island between the two lots to screen the parking.
PROJECT HISTORY:
· February 12, 2004: Cumberland Board of Appeals approved the special exception application for the Churchs use of the 4 Foreside Road property for a parking lot.
· March 30, 2004: Planning Board finds the application complete.
Mr. Mohr stated that the church does not currently have site location of development license. It does not meet the thresholds. The same holds true with the MDOT turning movement permit. We have submitted the MDOT entrance permit for the Wayner lot.
Mr. Mohr addressed Mr. Neagles concern of the fundraising. The church does have sufficient funds to go forward with the project pending the Boards approval.
Ms. Howe noted that the central spine appears to be narrower.
Mr. Mohr stated more buffer was added due to the loss of dimensions. They would like to keep the visual edge of the parking lot.
Mr. Turner asked if the school buses are still able to use this parking lot for a turnaround.
Mr. Mohr stated that the buses can still turn around. There is enough room for a 45-foot single unit through the lot.
Mr. Turner suggested that the school districts be made aware of the change.
Mr. Hunt opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Ms. Nixon reviewed the proposed findings and recommendations:
Sec. 206.8 Approval Standards and Criteria
The following criteria shall be used by the Planning Board in reviewing applications for site plan review and shall serve as minimum requirements for approval of the application. The application shall be approved unless the Planning Board determines that the applicant has failed to meet one or more of these standards. In all instances, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant who must produce evidence sufficient to warrant a finding that all applicable criteria have been met.
.1 Utilization of the Site
Utilization of the Site - The plan for the development, including buildings, lots, and support facilities, must reflect the natural capabilities of the site to support development. Environmentally sensitive areas, including but not limited to, wetlands, steep slopes, floodplains, significant wildlife habitats, fisheries, scenic areas, habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals, unique natural communities and natural areas, and sand and gravel aquifers must be maintained and preserved to the maximum extent. The development must include appropriate measures for protecting these resources, including but not limited to, modification of the proposed design of the site, timing of construction, and limiting the extent of excavation.
The project work limits do not impact any environmentally sensitive areas. An erosion and sedimentation plan has been reviewed and approved by the Towns per review engineer.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.2 Traffic Access and Parking
Vehicular access to and from the development must be safe and convenient.
.1 Any driveway or proposed street must be designed so as to provide the minimum sight distance according to the Maine Department of Transportation standards, to the maximum extent possible.
The sight distances are in excess of requirements for the 35 mph speed limit.
.2 Points of access and egress must be located to avoid hazardous conflicts with existing turning movements and traffic flows.
The Towns peer review engineer has reviewed the plans for the driveways and found them acceptable. The plans are also being reviewed by MDOT.
.3 The grade of any proposed drive or street must be not more than +3% for a minimum of two (2) car lengths, or forty (40) feet, from the intersection.
The proposed grade (3%) meets this standard.
.4 The intersection of any access/egress drive or proposed street must function: (a) at a Level of Service D, or better, following development if the project will generate one thousand (1,000) or more vehicle trips per twenty-four (24) hour period; or (b) at a level which will allow safe access into and out of the project if less than one thousand (1,000) trips are generated.
There is not expected to be any change in the volume of traffic for this site. The proposed circulation plan will improve the level of service. A waiver has been granted.
.5 Where a lot has frontage on two (2) or more streets, the primary access to and egress from the lot must be provided from the street where there is less potential for traffic congestion and for traffic and pedestrians hazards. Access from other streets may be allowed if it is safe and does not promote short cutting through the site.
Not Applicable.
.6 Where it is necessary to safeguard against hazards to traffic and pedestrians and/ or to avoid traffic congestion, the applicant shall be responsible for providing turning lanes, traffic directional islands, and traffic controls within public streets.
No public street improvements are required, though pedestrian access will be improved through the installation of two sidewalks from the parking lots to the front door. There will be a separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
.7 Accessways must be designed and have sufficient capacity to avoid queuing of entering vehicles on any public street.
The new circulation system expands the queuing system on site and will decrease or eliminate queuing on the public street.
.8 The following criteria must be used to limit the number of driveways serving a proposed project:
a. No use which generates less than one hundred (100) vehicle trips per day shall have more than one (1) two-way driveway onto a single roadway. Such driveway must be no greater than thirty (30) feet wide.
b. No use which generates one hundred (100) or more vehicle trips per day shall have more than two (2) points of entry from and two (2) points of egress to a single roadway. The combined width of all accessways must not exceed sixty (60) feet.
The plan complies with this requirement.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.3 Accessway Location and Spacing
Accessways must meet the following standards:
.1 Private entrance / exits must be located at least fifty (50) feet from the closest unsignalized intersection and one hundred fifty (150) feet from the closest signalized intersection, as measured from the point of tangency for the corner to the point of tangency for the accessway. This requirement may be reduced if the shape of the site does not allow conformance with this standard.
There are no signalized road intersections within 150 of the driveways.
.2 Private accessways in or out of a development must be separated by a minimum of seventy-five (75) feet where possible.
The one-way driveways are 82 apart.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.4 Internal Vehicular Circulation
The layout of the site must provide for the safe movement of passenger, service, and emergency vehicles through the site.
.1 Projects that will be served by delivery vehicles must provide a clear route for such vehicles with appropriate geometric design to allow turning and backing.
.2 Clear routes of access must be provided and maintained for emergency vehicles to and around buildings and must be posted with appropriate signage (fire lane - no parking).
.3 The layout and design of parking areas must provide for safe and convenient circulation of vehicles throughout the lot.
The existing uses rarely require service deliveries. The new plan creates a drop off zone for these occasional deliveries.
.4 All roadways must be designed to harmonize with the topographic and natural features of the site insofar as practical by minimizing filling, grading, excavation, or other similar activities which result in unstable soil conditions and soil erosion, by fitting the development to the natural contour of the land and avoiding substantial areas of excessive grade and tree removal, and by retaining existing vegetation during construction. The road network must provide for vehicular, pedestrian, and cyclist safety, all season emergency access, snow storage, and delivery and collection services.
The proposed parking lot was designed as a narrow, sloping lot to fit with the existing lot configuration and to work with the existing grades found on the property. Cut and fill have been minimized, and the proposed grading will accommodate all-season pedestrian, vehicular and emergency uses.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.5 Parking Layout and Design
Off street parking must conform to the following standards:
.1 Parking areas with more than two (2) parking spaces must be arranged so that it is not necessary for vehicles to back into the street.
This has been done.
.2 All parking spaces, access drives, and impervious surfaces must be located at least fifteen (15) feet from any side or rear lot line, except where standards for buffer yards require a greater distance. No parking spaces or asphalt type surface shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of the front property line. Parking lots on adjoining lots may be connected by accessways not exceeding twenty-four (24) feet in width.
This has been done.
.3 Parking stalls and aisle layout must conform to the following standards.
Parking Stall Skew Stall Aisle
Angle Width Width Depth Width
90° 9'-0" 18'-0" 24'-0" 2-way
60° 8'-6" 10'-6" 18'-0" 16'-0" 1-way
45° 8'-6" 12'-9" 17'-6" 12'-0" 1-way
30° 8'-6" 17'-0" 17'-0" 12'-0" 1 way
All parking spaces will be 86 wide, 106 long; and one way travel lane will be 16 .
.4 In lots utilizing diagonal parking, the direction of proper traffic flow must be indicated by signs, pavement markings or other permanent indications and maintained as necessary.
This has been done.
.5 Parking areas must be designed to permit each motor vehicle to proceed to and from the parking space provided for it without requiring the moving of any other motor vehicles.
This has been done.
.6 Provisions must be made to restrict the "overhang" of parked vehicles when it might restrict traffic flow on adjacent through roads, restrict pedestrian or bicycle movement on adjacent walkways, or damage landscape materials.
This has been done.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.6 Pedestrian Circulation
The site plan must provide for a system of pedestrian ways within the development appropriate to the type and scale of development. This system must connect the major building entrances/ exits with parking areas and with existing sidewalks, if they exist or are planned in the vicinity of the project. The pedestrian network may be located either in the street right-of-way or outside of the right-of-way in open space or recreation areas. The system must be designed to link the project with residential, recreational, and commercial facilities, schools, bus stops, and existing sidewalks in the neighborhood or, when appropriate, to connect the amenities such as parks or open space on or adjacent to the site.
The proposed plan introduces a walkway system where none existed previously.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.7 Stormwater Management
Adequate provisions must be made for the collection and disposal of all stormwater that runs off proposed streets, parking areas, roofs, and other surfaces, through a stormwater drainage system and maintenance plan, which must not have adverse impacts on abutting or downstream properties.
.1 To the extent possible, the plan must retain stormwater on the site using the natural features of the site.
Stormwater will be directed to a grass swale on site to provide some infiltration and retention prior to the stormwater entering the existing catch basin in Route 88.
.2 Unless the discharge is directly to the ocean or major river segment, stormwater runoff systems must detain or retain water such that the rate of flow from the site after development does not exceed the predevelopment rate.
There is no increase to stormwater on-site, and no significant change off site to the catchbasin.
.3 The applicant must demonstrate that on - and off-site downstream channel or system capacity is sufficient to carry the flow without adverse effects, including but not limited to, flooding and erosion of shoreland areas, or that he / she will be responsible for whatever improvements are needed to provide the required increase in capacity and / or mitigation.
The existing drainage system on Route 88 has the capacity to handle this small change as evidenced by the stormwater report by Steve Blais, P.E.
.4 All natural drainage ways must be preserved at their natural gradients and must not be filled or converted to a closed system unless approved as part of the site plan review.
No impacts to natural drainage ways are proposed.
.5 The design of the stormwater drainage system must provide for the disposal of stormwater without damage to streets, adjacent properties, downstream properties, soils, and vegetation.
Based on the minor increase in stormwater, no impacts to streets, downstream properties, soils or vegetation will result.
.6 The design of the storm drainage systems must be fully cognizant of upstream runoff, which must pass over or through the site to be developed and provide for this movement.
The larger watershed has been evaluated. The proposed plan accommodates the limited increase resulting from this project.
.7 The biological and chemical properties of the receiving waters must not be degraded by the stormwater runoff from the development site. The use of oil and grease traps in manholes, the use of on-site vegetated waterways, and vegetated buffer strips along waterways and drainage swales, and the reduction in use of deicing salts and fertilizers may be required, especially where the development stormwater discharges into a gravel aquifer area or other water supply source, or a great pond.
The runoff characteristics will remain unchanged from current conditions.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.8 Erosion Control
.1 All building, site, and roadway designs and layouts must harmonize with existing topography and conserve desirable natural surroundings to the fullest extent possible, such that filling, excavation and earth moving activity must be kept to a minimum. Parking lots on sloped sites must be terraced to avoid undue cut and fill, and / or the need for retaining walls. Natural vegetation must be preserved and protected wherever possible.
.2 Soil erosion and sedimentation of watercourses and water bodies must be minimized by an active program meeting the requirements of the Maine Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Construction: Best Management Practices, dated March 1991, and as amended from time to time.
Erosion control measures have been reviewed and approved by Tom Saucier. They are in conformance with the Best Management Practices.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.9 Water Supply Provisions
The development must be provided with a system of water supply that provides each use with an adequate supply of water. If the project is to be served by a public water supply, the applicant must secure and submit a written statement from the supplier that the proposed water supply system conforms with its design and construction standards, will not result in an undue burden on the source of distribution system, and will be installed in a manner adequate to provide needed domestic and fire protection flows.
The project will not require any significant need for water beyond irrigation of the new plantings for the first three years.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.10 Sewage Disposal Provisions
The development must be provided with a method of disposing of sewage, which is in compliance with the State Plumbing Code. If provisions are proposed for on-site waste disposal, all such systems must conform to the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules.
The project has no impact on sewage disposal.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.11 Utilities
The development must be provided with electrical, telephone, and telecommunication service adequate to meet the anticipated use of the project. New utility lines and facilities must be screened from view to the extent feasible. If the service in the street or on adjoining lots is underground, the new service must be placed underground.
All new lines will be underground, replacing the existing overhead service.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.12 Groundwater Protection
The proposed site development and use must not adversely impact either the quality or quantity of groundwater available to abutting properties or to the public water supply systems. Applicants whose projects involve on-site water supply or sewage disposal systems with a capacity of two thousand (2,000) gallons per day or greater must demonstrate that the groundwater at the property line will comply, following development, with the standards for safe drinking water as established by the State of Maine.
The project does not use groundwater resources and no discharge to groundwater is proposed.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.13 Water Quality Protection
All aspects of the project must be designed so that:
.1 No person shall locate, store, discharge, or permit the discharge of any treated, untreated, or inadequately treated liquid, gaseous, or solid materials of such nature, quantity, obnoxious, toxicity, or temperature that may run off, seep, percolate, or wash into surface or groundwaters so as to contaminate, pollute, or harm such waters or cause nuisances, such as objectionable shore deposits, floating or submerged debris, oil or scum, color, odor, taste, or unsightliness or be harmful to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life.
.2 All storage facilities for fuel, chemicals, chemical or industrial wastes, and biodegradable raw materials, must meet the standards of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the State Fire Marshall's Office.
The project involves no storage for fuel, chemicals, chemical or industrial waste of biodegradable raw materials. No discharges of unsuitable materials are contemplated.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.14 Capacity of the Applicant
The applicant must demonstrate that he / she has the financial and technical capacity to carry out the project in accordance with this ordinance and the approved plan.
Mohr and Seredin prepared the site plan. The Church has funds in place for this project.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.15 Historic and Archaeological Resources
If any portion of the site has been identified as containing historic or archaeological resources, the development must include appropriate measures for protecting these resources, including but not limited to, modification of the proposed design of the site, timing of construction, and limiting the extent of excavation.
The site does not contain any historic or archaeological resources.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.16 Floodplain Management
If any portion of the site is located within a special flood hazard area as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, all use and development of that portion of the site must be consistent with the Town's Floodplain management provisions.
The site is not located within a special hazard flood area.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.17 Exterior Lighting
The proposed development must have adequate exterior lighting to provide for its safe use during nighttime hours, if such use is contemplated. All exterior lighting must be designed and shielded to avoid undue glare, adverse impact on neighboring properties and rights - of way, and the unnecessary lighting of the night sky.
All lights will be fully shielded with cut-offs and be on timers for evening shut-off as per the site plan and details submitted.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.18 Buffering of Adjacent Uses
The development must provide for the buffering of adjacent uses where there is a transition from one type of use to another use and for the screening of mechanical equipment and service and storage areas. The buffer may be provided by distance, landscaping, fencing, changes in grade, and / or a combination of these or other techniques.
A buffering plan for the residential abutter has been integrated into the project design. This has been approved by the abutter. Street trees are proposed for the side of the lot adjacent to Route 88.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.19 Noise
The development must control noise levels such that it will not create a nuisance for neighboring properties.
The use will not create a source of noise that will be a nuisance to properties.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.20 Storage of Materials
.1 Exposed nonresidential storage areas, exposed machinery, and areas used for the storage or collection of discarded automobiles, auto parts, metals or other articles of salvage or refuse must have sufficient setbacks and screening (such as a stockade fence or a dense evergreen hedge) to provide a visual buffer sufficient to minimize their impact on abutting residential uses and users of public streets.
A lilac hedge will buffer the residential use on one side.
.2 All dumpsters or similar large collection receptacles for trash or other wastes must be located on level surfaces which are paved or graveled. Where the dumpster or receptacle is located in a yard which abuts a residential or institutional use or a public street, it must be screened by fencing or landscaping.
No new dumpster is proposed. The existing dumpster will have a landscape screen added to its south side.
.3 Where a potential safety hazard to children is likely to arise, physical screening sufficient to deter small children from entering the premises must be provided and maintained in good condition.
No safety hazards to children are apparent on this property.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.21 Landscaping
Landscaping must be provided as part of site design. The landscape plan for the entire site must use landscape materials to integrate the various elements on site, preserve and enhance the particular identity of the site, and create a pleasing site character. The landscaping should define street edges, break up parking areas, soften the appearance of the development, and protect abutting properties.
A landscape plan has been prepared outlining the installation of various trees and shrubs. The plan will enhance the visual appearance of the front and sides of the building and parking areas and will complement the existing trees and plantings.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
.22 Building and Parking Placement
.1 The site design should avoid creating a building surrounded by a parking lot. Parking should be to the side and preferably in the back. In rural, uncongested areas buildings should be set well back from the road so as to conform to the rural character of the area. If the parking is in front, a generous, landscaped buffer between road and parking lot is to be provided. Unused areas should be kept natural, as field, forest, wetland, etc.
The parking design retains a central green space/landscape island between the lots and in front of the church.
.2 Where two or more buildings are proposed, the buildings should be grouped and linked with sidewalks; tree planting should be used to provide shade and break up the scale of the site. Parking areas should be separated from the building by a minimum of five (5) to ten (10) feet. Plantings should be provided along the building edge, particularly where building facades consist of long or unbroken walls.
No new buildings are proposed.
The Board finds the standards of this section have been met.
206.9 Limitation of Approval
Construction of the improvements covered by any site plan approval must be substantially commenced within twelve (12) months of the date upon which the approval was granted. If construction has not been substantially commenced and substantially completed within the specified period, the approval shall be null and void. The applicant may request an extension of the approval deadline prior to expiration of the period. Such request must be in writing and must be made to the Planning Board. The Planning Board may grant up to two (2), six (6) month extensions to the periods if the approved plan conforms to the ordinances in effect at the time the extension is granted and any and all federal and state approvals and permits are current.
Mr. Hunt motioned to approve the findings as reviewed by the Planner.
Mr. Turner Seconded.
Vote: UNANIMOUS
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. That the applicant, prepare an estimate of values for review by SYTDesign and Town staff, and that a pre-construction meeting be held prior to the start of construction.
Condition removed by Planner on May 24, 2004.2. That the hours of work be limited to 7:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m., daily.
3. That all fees be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. That the applicant, establish an escrow account with the Town to cover the costs of construction inspections
. Condition removed by Planner on May 24, 2004.
5. That an easement deed for access to the cemetery from Route 88 be prepared by the church, signed and recorded in the Registry of Deeds and reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Completed on May 19, 2004.
Mr. Turner moved to approve parking and site improvements at the Foreside Community Church at 4 Foreside Road, Tax Assessor Map U01, Lot 2A. in the LDR district.
Mr. Powers Seconded.
Vote: UNANIMOUS
5. Public Hearing Preliminary Plan Review Major 14-lot subdivision, Old Colony Estates, 10 Blackstrap Road, Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 71 and 70B, 51.9 acres, RR2m district, representative, Larry Bastion, P. E., Sebago Technics, Normand Berube Builders, Inc., owner.
Ms. Nixon stated that there appeared to be some storm water management issues. The applicant will review and return for the June meeting with corrections.
6. Application Completeness--Major Site Plan Review--Lot 8, Cumberland Business Park, Tax Assessor Map R02D, Lot1B, DST Realty, owner; SHP Management Corporation, applicant. Representative is Gawron Turgeon Architects.
Ms. Nixon reviewed:
REQUEST:
The applicant is SHP Management Corporation. DST Realty is the owner. Charlotte Malony, of Gawron Turgeon Architects is the representative. The applicant is requesting major site plan review for a new office building on Lot #8 of the Cumberland Business Park, Tax Assessor Map R02 D Lot 1B.
Tonight the Board is reviewing the plan for Application Completeness.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
1. The proposed project is for the construction of a one-story wooden building of approximately 7000 sq. ft. to accommodate 20 employees. The building will be heated by propane gas. There will be a parking lot. All utilities will be underground. Public Utilities are currently located on Thomas Drive.
2. The site is bordered on the east by Route One, by Thomas Drive on the north and by two undeveloped lots to the west and south, both of which are wooded. It is approximately 2.1 acres in size and covered with a mix of deciduous (oak) and coniferous (pine and hemlock) trees.
3. The lot setbacks are 25 front, 30 side and 65 rear. The Route One Design Guidelines call for a 75setback from Route One, the applicant initially proposed only the 25 permitted in the OC North zone.
4. SHP owns and manages housing throughout the United States. Its acquisition and accounting departments are currently located in Portland. SHPS business is expanding and they would like to move their offices to Cumberland. Their hours of operation are 8 A.M. to 5 p/m/, Monday through Friday.
5. The applicant has provided a letter from traffic engineer John Murphy that indicates this use will generate an estimated 11 peak hour trips for a total for the development of 117. This is well below the 310-trip limit imposed by DOT.
PROJECT HISTORY:
4/20/04: Site Inventory and Analysis Complete
Ms. Maloney of Gawron Turgeon Architects made note that Chris Bowden, the owner of the project, is also in attendance.
Ms. Maloney reviewed the backside of the building that will be facing Route One as requested by Mr. Neagle from the prior meeting. She reviewed the diagram of the building.
Ms. Maloney made a special request per the owner of the building. They requested the possibility of Final Approval based on a full review and meeting all of the conditions.
Mr. Hunt stated that it was not advertised as such and therefore that request cannot be granted.
Ms. Howe moved to find the application complete.
Mr. Powers seconded.
Vote: UNANIMOUS.
A Public hearing is scheduled for next month.
7. Sketch Plan Review-- Major 12 lot subdivision, Orchard Ridge Subdivision, 158 Orchard Rd., Tax Assessor Map R08, Lot 44, 31 acres, RR-2 zone, Great Neck Builders, owner; Curtis Neufeld, P.E., SYTDesign Consultants, representative.
Ms. Nixon reviewed the application with the Board. She stated that the Board did prefer the clustered plan previously submitted. Also discussed was the possibility of linking this subdivision to a future subdivision. A site walk took place prior to the meeting this evening. Ms. Nixon suggested that Mr. Simonds come back this month to conclude the sketch plan review stage to determine which design concept the Board prefers and to discuss any other concerns before the engineering work begins.
Mr. Simonds of Great Neck Builders stated that when Mark Hampton completed the wetlands delineation, lot #1 (behind Exxon Mobile pipeline), was moved from behind the pipeline to in front of the pipeline to protect that area. In doing so, a span of trees would buffer the house from the roadway if the lot could be crowded towards the back.
Mr. Simonds asked the Board to reduce the perimeter buffer only for lot #1 from 75 to 50. There is room to leave the house next to the road with the current setbacks however, Mr. Simonds feels that it would be a better layout to nestle the house into the trees. This lot abuts what will eventually be the single-family home of Alexander Hughes. Her house is contemplated to be in the middle of the 17 acres she is retaining.
Mr. Simonds discussed Phase II, Orchard Hill. He discussed the road connectivity to Orchard Ridge. It is a fairly lengthy Road; the Board suggested Mr. Simonds review some alternatives.
Mr. Simonds reviewed some of the comments made during the site walk with regards to the wetlands. He will address these issues and submit to the Board for the next meeting.
Mr. Simonds stated that he has offered to grant an easement to the CMIT for the land along the pipelines, eventually to be used for snowmobile trails.
Mr. Neagle reviewed the ordinance with the regards to the 75 buffer request. Mr. Neagle stated that is not within the Boards power to change the ordinance, which is very specific.
Mr. Neagle stated that the easement for the CMIT is a good idea, however, the homeowners of lot 1&2 should be notified.
Ms. Howe made mention to the stream on the property.
Mr. Turner asked if anything could be done to alleviate that swail between 4&6.
Mr. Ward stated that is was a nice piece of property. He suggested possibly ask the abutter if the property line could be moved over 25 to work with the 75 requirement.
Mr. Powers stated that he is not a fan of cul de sacs.
Ms. Howe asked what the total road length is.
Mr. Simonds stated the road length as currently designed is 2600 lineal feet from Rose Drive to Orchard Road. If the road was to go through and back onto Rose Drive, the length increases to 3000 lineal feet. It is actually a longer road and creates the dead end situation. He stated it would also impose on some of the open space.
Mr. Simonds stated that the proposed Orchard Hill subdivision has not been finalized, and has not been submitted for sketch plan. The reason this is brought before the Board is to determine whether it merits one 60 ROW in the subdivision between lots 6&8, or whether it merits two 60 ROW that go o
